BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that combining supine and prone acquisitions during stress-gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPS) improves detection of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), though the additional imaging time required may not be feasible in routine clinical practice. MPS with prone-only acquisitions is occasionally performed in many laboratories, though little is known about the ability of modern MPS with prone-only acquisitions to detect obstructive CAD. Our goal was to assess the ability of MPS with prone-only acquisitions to detect obstructive CAD as determined by coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 386 patients referred for MPS with either recent coronary angiography or a low pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease. All rest and stress images were obtained exclusively in the prone position. The sensitivity of prone-only MPS was 88% for detecting > or =50% coronary artery stenosis and 92% for detecting > or =70% coronary artery stenosis as determined by coronary angiography. Normalcy rate for prone-only MPS in patients with low probability for CAD was 95%, and normalcy rates did not significantly differ among coronary artery distributions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that MPS using prone-only acquisitions is a reasonable diagnostic option for the detection of ischemia due to obstructive coronary artery disease.
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that combining supine and prone acquisitions during stress-gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPS) improves detection of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), though the additional imaging time required may not be feasible in routine clinical practice. MPS with prone-only acquisitions is occasionally performed in many laboratories, though little is known about the ability of modern MPS with prone-only acquisitions to detect obstructive CAD. Our goal was to assess the ability of MPS with prone-only acquisitions to detect obstructive CAD as determined by coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 386 patients referred for MPS with either recent coronary angiography or a low pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease. All rest and stress images were obtained exclusively in the prone position. The sensitivity of prone-only MPS was 88% for detecting > or =50% coronary artery stenosis and 92% for detecting > or =70% coronary artery stenosis as determined by coronary angiography. Normalcy rate for prone-only MPS in patients with low probability for CAD was 95%, and normalcy rates did not significantly differ among coronary artery distributions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that MPS using prone-only acquisitions is a reasonable diagnostic option for the detection of ischemia due to obstructive coronary artery disease.
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Gary J Balady; J Timothy Bricker; Bernard R Chaitman; Gerald F Fletcher; Victor F Froelicher; Daniel B Mark; Ben D McCallister; Aryan N Mooss; Michael G O'Reilly; William L Winters; Raymond J Gibbons; Elliott M Antman; Joseph S Alpert; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Gabriel Gregoratos; Loren F Hiratzka; Alice K Jacobs; Richard O Russell; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ralph G Brindis; Pamela S Douglas; Robert C Hendel; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Wolk; Joseph M Allen; Manesh R Patel; Ira E Raskin; Robert C Hendel; Timothy M Bateman; Manuel D Cerqueira; Raymond J Gibbons; Linda D Gillam; John A Gillespie; Robert C Hendel; Ami E Iskandrian; Scott D Jerome; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph V Messer; John A Spertus; Stephen A Stowers Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hidetaka Nishina; Piotr J Slomka; Aiden Abidov; Shunichi Yoda; Cigdem Akincioglu; Xingping Kang; Ishac Cohen; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher L Hansen; Richard A Goldstein; Olakunle O Akinboboye; Daniel S Berman; Elias H Botvinick; Keith B Churchwell; C David Cooke; James R Corbett; S James Cullom; Seth T Dahlberg; Regina S Druz; Edward P Ficaro; James R Galt; Ravi K Garg; Guido Germano; Gary V Heller; Milena J Henzlova; Mark C Hyun; Lynne L Johnson; April Mann; Benjamin D McCallister; Robert A Quaife; Terrence D Ruddy; Senthil N Sundaram; Raymond Taillefer; R Parker Ward; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan Abrams; Kanu Chatterjee; Jennifer Daley; Prakash C Deedwania; John S Douglas; T Bruce Ferguson; Stephan D Fihn; Theodore D Fraker; Julius M Gardin; Robert A O'Rourke; Richard C Pasternak; Sankey V Williams; Raymond J Gibbons; Joseph S Alpert; Elliott M Antman; Loren F Hiratzka; Valentin Fuster; David P Faxon; Gabriel Gregoratos; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John J Ryan; Rupa Mehta; Thejasvi Thiruvoipati; R Parker Ward; Kim Allan Williams Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Thomas A Holly; Brian G Abbott; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Dennis A Calnon; Mylan C Cohen; Frank P DiFilippo; Edward P Ficaro; Michael R Freeman; Robert C Hendel; Diwakar Jain; Scott M Leonard; Kenneth J Nichols; Donna M Polk; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Sharmila Dorbala; Karthik Ananthasubramaniam; Ian S Armstrong; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; E Gordon DePuey; Andrew J Einstein; Robert J Gropler; Thomas A Holly; John J Mahmarian; Mi-Ae Park; Donna M Polk; Raymond Russell; Piotr J Slomka; Randall C Thompson; R Glenn Wells Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Vicente Taasan; Anita Wokhlu; Michael V Taasan; Raman S Dusaj; Ajay Mehta; Steven Kraft; David Winchester; David Wymer Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 5.952